In the last chapter, we discussed multiplexing and demultiplexing – respectively merging and splitting many streams of information over a single pipeline. As previously hinted, we’re getting surprisingly close to having all of the pieces in place to make an honest-to-goodness computer.

We don’t plan to stop there, it’s just that we’ll need one in order to jump to the next level of abstraction; dealing directly with wires is so barbarian.

But we’re not there yet. Today we set our sights on coming up with a way of representing changes over time in our machine diagrams. This is a harder problem than it sounds, because we don’t even have a notion of time yet. Our machine diagrams are defined in terms of function tables, which, as we’ve repeatedly stressed, always provide the same output given the same input. They’re not allowed to do anything except for syntactic manipulation of values on the underlying wires.

And so, it would seem, we find ourselves at an impasse. We could obviously just loosen the constraints on what our function tables are allowed to do, but this is undesirable for two reasons:

The first is that ensuring our machines depend on nothing but their inputs means they are easy to reason about, and can always be decomposed and recomposed to and from their constituent parts. Because function tables must depend only on their inputs, this kind of reasoning is safe to do, since no externalities in the system can influence our analysis.

The more practical reason is that it’s not even clear how we would allow function tables to do these crazy things that don’t depend on their input, like determine whether it’s Tuesday. Half the time I’m not entirely convinced about whether or not today is Tuesday; I usually resolve the question by asking someone. Again, we get a win from parsimony on this one; “Tuesday” and most other arbitrary things you can ask about are very obviously human concepts. Humans are great and all, but we shouldn’t expect the universe to fundamentally agree with us that time should be subdivided into seven units, upon which our machines behave differently.

So, how can we make a machine whose future depends on its past? Easy. Consider the following simplified example:

Whoa. This Hold machine outputs a 0 at first, but a 1 forever after its input has been raised high. What we’ve done is created a feedback loop from this machine’s output to its input. Somehow the output of this machine is defined in terms of itself, which is actually pretty spooky if you think about it.

It will be informative to look at this machine’s function table, since it is a little different than we are used to seeing.

Input

Last Output

Next Output

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

We’ve cleverly snuck around our limitation of requiring a function table to depend only on its inputs by splitting its output into its last output and its next output.

The very labeling of last and next outputs is informative; it strongly suggests that these machines can change over time, so long as their inputs change over time. And this makes sense; if some external force influences our wires (eg. maybe the user presses a button), we want our systems to react to that stimulus.

Feedback is actually a really interesting phenomenon. We can use it to implement rather exotic things, like a clock:

This is not a “clock” in the usual human sense, but more in the sense of “it ticks and it tocks and in general could be used to measure time if you knew how fast it was ticking”.

Last Output

Next Output

0

1

1

0

Neat. So with a couple of these examples under our belt, let’s build something useful. There is a canonical first impression of these things, and it looks like this:

This is known as an RS latch. A useful mnemonic for keeping track of what it does is that the S stands for “set” and the R stands for “reset”. Which is to say, that raising the S input will “set” the latch, and keep output Q be 1, while raising the R input will “reset” the latch and return the output to 0.

Its function table, if you’re into that kind of thing, is presented here:

R

S

Last Q

Next Q

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

Invalid

1

1

0

Invalid

What’s this “invalid” stuff? Well, setting both R and S high makes both of the nor gates output a 0, which if you trace the diagram will cause crazy behavior in our output Q, and break the semantic model we have of what it means to “set” or “reset” this thing.

The function table is kind of gnarly, so we can also write it like the following, which helps to convey the semantics of what we’re trying to accomplish:

R

S

Q

0

0

No Change

0

1

0

1

1

Invalid

1

0

1

where “No Change” obviously indicates Next Q = Last Q.

The RS machine is our first exposure to latches: machines which hold some kind of “state” depending on what has happened in the past. In this case, RS remembers which of R or S was most recently high. As such, we can think of it as having a some memory. Indeed, the RS latch stores one bit of information for us.

Unfortunately, the RS latch is finicky. Whenever you see an Invalid set of inputs, you should become very worried, because of Murphy’s law: despite your best efforts, something will cause the illegal combination of inputs, and the rest of our machine will explode – either logically, or in some cases of real electronics, physically.

What we’d really like to do is to provide some sort of “interface” to the RS latch, which guarantees that R and S can’t possibly be high simultaneously. The only way to ensure that is if the input to R were somehow derived from the not of the input to S. But, if that were the case, we’d also want another wire anded against both of them, to prevent the latch from toggling indefinitely.

The Snap machine is exactly this interface we desire. As you might expect from the name, Snap takes a snapshot of V (“value”) whenever S (“set”) is high. Behind the scenes, Snap is nothing more than a fancy RS latch, but now we’ve guaranteed that we can’t possibly toggle the illegal input condition on the latch. Our semantic function table for Snap looks like this:

S

Q

0

No Change

1

V

Of course, being able to store a single bit isn’t particularly useful. Thankfully, as usual, multiwires give us a convenient way of “lifting” single-wire machines to multi-wire machines. Thus, we present Snap*, a polymorphic snapshot machine capable of taking a snapshot of an entire multiwire at once:

It’s worthwhile to stop and think about how far we’ve come, and exactly how many little details are hiding away inside of this simple diagram for Snap*. The multiwire makes n copies of the internal Snap, which itself contains two machines. We’ve managed to pack an incredible amount of machinery into this one diagram, and the functionality of it is no longer anywhere close to being “trivial”. We really and truly have designed something worthwhile here, both in terms of Snap* and in terms of the abstraction tools we’ve built in order to actually describe it.

Something that might further pique your intrigue is that we are nowhere near the limit of the abstraction tools we’ll have built by the end of this book. We’re still just getting started.

In the next chapter, we’ll build big blocks of these Snap* machines, capable of storing many different nybbles simultaneously. We’ll further design machinery to read and write from any particular cell in this snapshot block, at which point we’ll have a working memory component for our computer.